PUGACH v. NEW YORK 383 U.S. 575 (1966)

United States Supreme Court

PUGACH v. NEW YORK (1966)

No. 131

Decided: March 21, 1966

Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner pro se.

Isidore Dollinger and Bertram R. Gelfand for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. [383 U.S. 575, 576]

COUNTY BOARD, ELECTION, MONROE CTY. v. UNITED STATES, <flCite id="/us-supreme-court/383/575#">383 U.S. 575 </flCite> (1966) 383 U.S. 575 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

COUNTY BOARD, ELECTION, MONROE CTY. v. UNITED STATES, 383 U.S. 575 (1966)

383 U.S. 575

COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, ET AL. v.
UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 1040.
Decided March 21, 1966.

248 F. Supp. 316, appeal dismissed.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Jean M. Coon, Assistant Attorney General, Ruth Kessler Toch, Acting Solicitor General, and William A. Stevens for appellants.

Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111 ; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 382 U.S. 281 .

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law